No I won't. What you mistake for "moaning" isn't and never has been. I, and those who think like me, just reach different conclusions about where our place in the world needs to be. Not just for today but for our mid to long term futures. People like you often complain that Brexit is not just about economics and, on this, you are quite right.

As I see little prospect of my reasoning changing I suspect that in 5 years time I will be pushing for us to re-enter, a hopefully reform aed, EU. We will be facing another election, unless Johnson changes the rules to favour him. The greener grass argument will be reversed by then. Hopefully an effective opposition with a strong message (including introducing PR) will have emerged and the drift to the right stopped in it's tracks. Things always go in cycles so time is my political friend, even though it might not be my personal one.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You simply confirm exactly what I said!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

If you could apply a single word to western societal breakdown it would be called “Ireland”. The switch from Catholic dogma to Globalist dogma has been spectacular to say the least.

[Tweet Link]

Doubt that’s possible. Who decides what’s “true” and what isn’t?
Do they also censor books, films, documentaries , etc? That sounds more dangerous than the risk of some people believing jokes are real.

The unelected bureaucrats of the EU signed the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement this week.

It was signed by two unelected EU presidents, each earning over €32,000 a month, and overseen by an equally unelected Barnier on something in the €20,000 p/m range.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jan 2020 5.35am)

Attachment: EUsigning.JPG (65.16Kb)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

If you voted remain are you starting to feel a little silly now.
[Link]

Their arrogance won't allow it.

As for Lagarde n co, constantly revising their predictions is what the IMF does best so this shouldn't be a surprise.

Buy Litecoin.

It's actually worrying that the IMF have changed their mind. When was the last time they got any forecast right?

It's the same with Mark Carney and almost every other economist. They speak with great authority yet their arrogance challenges anyone to disagree with them.

One of the main problems with economists, bankers, politicians and other policy makers is that, since the Financial Crisis of 2008, the world changed. Yet most of this group went to university during the era that myself and most of this group grew up, in the period between 1980 and 2008 which was a freak period fuelled only by unlimited credit. But to them it was the norm.

Having learned the same stuff from the same books and the same professors at their universities (be it Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, Yale etc) they still believe it to be true. Again, their arrogance prevents them from considering that they're wrong (and all that they learned is wrong). If you ever hear anyone saying that they are forecasting that interest rates are "normalising", dismiss their opinion immediately as they are talking about what they see as normal, not what is normal today. They've had 11 years to get used to it after all.

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

I am not suggesting any kind of censorship let alone a "Ministry of Truth" which would be a total authoritarian nightmare. The idea of any government deciding what is true is an anathema to me. To suggest I am in favour of such an idea is a complete misrepresentation, which is unfortunately a common occurrence from the poster who made it.

Films and documentaries are careful not to make accusations about real people that are untrue. If they seek to make specific points then then will do so with fictional characters. Like media outlets they have lawyers checking facts before release and the media has editorial controls and standards as well as regulatory authorities providing oversight. They do this to avoid being sued for damages.

The social media companies are in a totally different position. Anything can be posted anonymously but presented in a way to appear as though it is "news". There is no editorial or legal oversight and no opportunity for any damaged party to sue for damages. Clearly this offers huge opportunities to those with particular viewpoints to spread their messages without any regard for the truth. This is propaganda on fire.

The companies do take it seriously and are doing things to attempt to mitigate the worst of the impact, despite the squeals from those who think that anything and everything ought to be allowed on their platforms. Which are, of course, THEIR platforms and not just public spaces. I heard Nick Clegg on this subject only a day or two ago.

My own view is that much more needs to be done to ensure that any attempt by malign forces to poison the well of public opinion, and informed debate, is stopped in it's tracks. Open debate and the exchange of diametrically opposed opinion is healthy in a free society. Propaganda designed to misinform by those who wish to destroy our way of life is not.

I don't have the answers but I do think there is a serious problem that cannot be ignored.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.